retired_ks reddy

So the Israeli army is definitely a terrorist organisation then? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Your words, not mine

Definition is really in the eye of the definer though.
If Blackwater was a Russian or Iranian group and was caught funneling arms to Al-Qaeda and shooting quite recklessly, whether they killed insurgents or civilians, the way we [the US] would talk about them is entirely different than how we do talk about them. </BLOCKQUOTE>

If Blackwater has provided the PKK with arms, they've also provided Al Qaeda with arms. Doesn't make them an arms provider in either case, though.

retired_princesspouty

So someone who has provided arms isn't an arms provider?

Sorry, but that logic seems very bizarre so I'm wondering what it means.

retired_ks reddy

Nobody is accusing Blackwater of arms trading. They're saying some of their lads bought weapons with them to Iraq, then sold them on privately.

The US has also bought loads of weapons to Iraq, to arm the Iraqi army and police. Being as how plenty of men in those two illustrious bodies are wankers, they've sold them on privately too. Doesn't mean the US has provided arms to whoever they end up with, as that wasn't the intention at all.

retired_princesspouty

Fair enough. Basically, they aren't in the business of trading as an organisation, but individual members may do private deals.

retired_ks reddy

That's about the size of it.

retired_justin05

So there are no terrorists? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there are but it's never as clear cut as you think. War and language too ambiguous for such neat definitions anyway. </BLOCKQUOTE>

How about "groups that make attacks on unarmed targets"? </BLOCKQUOTE>

That phrase "make attacks" is my problem. For me it's more "acceptable civilian losses". Everyone has them it's just the level of acceptance that changes. The acceptance changes due to lots of factors. The cause and who and which civilians you're killing seems to be the main ones. ANC targeted civilians and yet old Nelson gets a peace prize. So we give Nobel peace prizes to terrorists because we believe in the cause and who they were targeting.

For me it's the cause. Personally I wouldn't classify the ANC as terrorists even though they fit your definition but I would call the American attack on Iraq a terrorist act because the cause doesn't justify the level of civilian deaths we knew would happen.

retired_katie14

Wouldn't say the Americans targetted the civilians though.

Or are you just winding Bert up?

retired_ks reddy

He must be. We do everything in our power to minimise civvy casualties. When the other firm clear a marketplace with loudhailers before detonating their bomb, be sure to let me know eh?

retired_justin05

I don't care they didn't target the civilians. They decided that killing them was an acceptable byproduct of attacking the country. I don't even like the word terrorist. It just allows us to feel our killing of civilians is acceptable because we didn't specifically aim for them. I don't think the difference is enough to warrant the smug satisfaction we feel.

retired_ks reddy

Terrorists have no sense of humour.